role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

November 3, 1977

31st Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Hansard Transcripts

L039 - Thu 3 Nov 1977 / Jeu 3 nov 1977

INCREASES IN ESTIMATES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SALARY INCREASES

DESTINY CANADA CONFERENCE

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

INCOME TAX REDUCTION

ORAL QUESTIONS

ANACONDA LAYOFF

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

JOB CREATION

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL CUTBACKS

WEST END CRECHE

HYDRO CONTRACTS

RCMP TORONTO STAFF

ASSESSMENT DATA

ARSENIC CONTAMINATION

BENDIX LAYOFF

CHLOROFORM IN DRINKING WATER

ALLEGED MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS

REPORTS

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

REVIEW OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

DARLINGTON GENERATION STATION

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

INCREASES IN ESTIMATES

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: I draw to your attention standing order 86 of the Legislature, which states as follows: “Any bill, resolution, motion or address, the passage of which would impose a tax or specifically direct the allocation of public funds may not be passed by the House unless recommended by a message from the Lieutenant Governor, and may only be proposed by a minister of the Crown.”

This particular rule, of course, has been applied on the constitutional basis of the development of our whole system of government. I understand that yesterday the committee dealing with estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services had to adjourn because it was asked by the Chairman to consider a vote for the expenditure of public funds that had not been so supported by a message from Her Honour. I want you, sir, to look into the matter, and perhaps with the assistance of the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) or the Premier (Mr. Davis) we can find what the circumstances involve.

I bring to your attention briefly a statement made by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Norton) whose estimates were under consideration, in which he said, on June 30, in Hansard, on page 222: “At this time I would like to table information on the contents of an order in council which has been passed to create a new vote in the children’s services division to effect the transfer by July 1. Vote 2084” -- that may be a misprint, it should appear as 2804, but that’s another matter -- “for children’s services ...”

I simply draw your attention to his statement, because I question whether or not a new vote can be created that way; although an order in council has been put forward, it does not appear to have the support that would permit the chairman of the standing committee on social development to go forward with the debate, and finally the passage of the amount of money.

What deeply concerns me is that it appears these estimates are based on a budget arrived at even before the election. They are seriously out of date. The Treasurer (Mr. McKeough), or any other member of the government, has not brought forward supplementary estimates which may regularize them. We have the distinct impression that the government is spending money which has not been approved by the House, nor has it even been put forward in our estimates.

For that reason, sir, I believe that it is a very serious matter indeed, and I would like your direction to see not just that we regularize it, but that the whole procedure for the expenditure of these moneys is put on a democratic basis for the debate and consideration of our House and its committees.

Mr. Speaker: I might ask the hon. member for St. George is this a related matter?

Mrs. Campbell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’m speaking to the same point. I must say that I regret to be critical of the new minister in this area, because I recognize that perhaps he has not had the experience of some of his colleagues; but I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker,

section 31 of the order passed by this House on June 27, 1977, which states: “Ministers should provide advanced briefing material to their opposition critics before consideration of their latest estimates in a form to be determined by each minister.”

With regard to the Community and Social Services estimates, members of the social development committee received such material from the ministry. Included as well were annotations which indicated supplementaries of $1,111,300 for ministry administration. Vote 2802 has also been altered by the children’s services transfer, $124 million-odd being transferred to that new division. As well, material contained in the briefing book indicates that the ministry received some $3,665,500 in additional funds.

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, the authority for this. It has been pointed out, or reference has been made to the order in council. I have the order here. It does not do what it was purported to do, and in any event I question the propriety of proceeding by order in council to add additional funds to those contained in the earlier estimates.

In addition, there are major discrepancies between the estimates book and the Community and Social Services briefing book that are not explained by the children’s services transfer. I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, vote 2803, item 3, community programs capital. The briefing book gives one figure while the estimate book gives a different figure, a higher figure than that in the estimate book. Under the same vote and item, the briefing book gives a figure of $21,075,000 for operating expenditures while the estimate book shows a figure of $26,028,800, which represents a $4 million, nearly $5 million, difference.

Mr. Speaker, I view this matter seriously and I’m concerned, and not only in regard to this ministry, whether or not it has become the practice in this province to bring forward increased estimates without the use of supplementary procedures. If that happens, I think we’re in serious trouble, Mr. Speaker, in this House.

Mr. Sargent: What’s $4 million?

Mr. Speaker: Before I recognize the hon. member for Bellwoods, I think on the basis of what I’ve heard there seems to be cause for the lodging of a grievance. I don’t think we have to get into a debate on it. If the hon. member for Bellwoods has something substantive to add to it before someone wishes to respond on the other side, I will hear him.

Mr. McClellan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, I wish to comment on the issue before us. I was the one who moved the motion to adjourn the committee yesterday because of the impropriety of the presentation of the fourth vote.

Mrs. Campbell: I was the one who refused to go on.

Mr. McClellan: The issue is that some of the money is in other estimates of other ministries which are properly before other committees; and some of the money is new money, which is absolutely nowhere in terms of the proper procedures of this House. This issue is an incredible and largely inexplicable mishmash that needs to get sorted out, hopefully by Monday afternoon so that our committee may resume the very important business of looking at the estimates of children’s services provided by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Lewis: I like that, inexplicable mishmash. Boy, that captures the minister perfectly.

Mr. Speaker: The Chairman of Management Board.

Mr. Lewis: I like that.

Mr. Davis: It’s going to be explicable right now.

Mr. Foulds: Not with him it isn’t, not with flannel mouth.

Hon. Mr. Auld: I have become scrutable.

Mr. Nixon: I thought you were impregnable.

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, it is correct there is a problem with the continuation of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Lewis: I told you we should have Jim Taylor back. It didn’t happen when he was around.

Hon. Mr. Auld: As hon. members are aware, the new division of children’s services was put together from the Ministry of the Attorney General, the Ministry of Correctional Services, parts of them, and the Ministry of Health. The amounts relating to those expenditures are still shown in the originally printed estimates in those ministries.

At the time this was done, there was an incorrect assumption made that the precedent in the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Communications two or three years ago, when amounts were reduced by order in council rather than being added, and which was acceptable to the House, that the same procedure would fit for the addition in this instance, of an amount of roughly $4 million, as has been mentioned. It was brought to the attention of the committee and the ministry that that was improper. In the absence, at the moment, of the House leader of the government (Mr. Welch), the proposal which he was going to put forward to the House leaders is as follows.

There are three votes in the Ministry of Community and Social Services estimates. The fourth vote, the one reportedly established by order in council, is the one that is the problem. The government House leader is proposing to have the children’s services estimates debated as part of Community and Social Services expenditures, but have them voted on where they now exist in estimates of the Ministries of the Attorney General, Correctional Services and Health. The order in council then legally transfers the responsibility of the amounts in those groups and items to Community and Social Services to allow them to operate.

Mr. Lewis: I give up.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is simple.

Hon. Mr. Auld: However, supplementaries will still be required for the approximately $4 million in extra funds which have now been authorized legally to Community and Social Services by an authorization for commitment; that amount would be voted in the supplementary estimates when we get the supplementary estimates after the original estimates are completed.

The procedure would be that the Ministries of the Attorney General, Correctional Services and Health would then state during their estimates debate that these amounts that were transferred have been approved by the standing committee when it dealt with the Ministry of Community and Social Services estimates.

Mr. Martel: Remember what happened to Bert Lance with stuff like that?

Mr. Sargent: Do you really understand that, Jimmy?

Mr. Makarchuk: If you do, you are the only one.

Mr. Lewis: That’s not really satisfactory.

Mr. Speaker: If I understand the remarks of the Chairman of Management Board correctly, there has been an undertaking that the government House leader will be negotiating with the other House leaders to arrive at an amicable, and what appears to be a realistic, solution to this problem. The remarks have been duly noted. If it seems that the Chair should assist in any way we’ll be happy to do so, but I think, with the undertaking given by the Chairman of Management Board, it is negotiable. They are aware of the problem and it seems that it can be resolved.

[2:15]

Mr. Nixon: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker: I would put it to you, sir, that there’s nothing to be negotiated. There is a well-accepted procedure that must be fulfilled.

If I may say something further, the hon. minister, in an effort to clarify the matter, has done anything but that. As I understand him, and I would like your assistance with this, he indicated that it was agreed that the cabinet could reduce an estimate, and therefore he extrapolated that to consider that there was agreement that they could increase estimates, which of course could not be further from the truth.

Mr. Lewis: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask, sir, that you intrude yourself on the discussion because if I understand the Chairman of Management Board--I have been here 14 years and I never have before; but if on this occasion I understand him, what he is saying, I think, is that the moneys in individual estimates other than those of the Ministry of Community and Social Services, will come before the House and be passed on the understanding that they are applicable elsewhere, that is in the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

I don’t know how we can possibly get into that kind of procedure in this Legislature. It just won’t work. I urge you, sir, to take a look at it.

Mr. Speaker: Whatever negotiations are undertaken, they will be carried out having regard for past procedures and having regard for the standing order. I didn’t want to leave the impression that we would be making exceptions in this case. It will have to be done in accordance with past practice.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SALARY INCREASES

Hon. Mr. Auld: Mr. Speaker, salary adjustments for some 14,000 civil servants in management classes have been determined and will be effective on October 1, 1977, or January 1, 1978, or April 1, 1978, depending on the review date of the respective categories. The global increase for the management payroll has been held to six per cent. Within this overall amount, individual increases will range from 3.8 per cent at the highest salary levels to seven per cent at the lower-paid classes. These increases were determined, having due regard to the statements of the Hon.

Jean Chretien that salary increases in the third year of the program should be held at six per cent and our announced determination to restrain all increases and expenditures.

Salary adjustments for bargaining unit employees are subject to collective bargaining. We are currently engaged in negotiation, and I expect arbitration, and I will be reporting the results as soon as the process is completed.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have two statements to make, but I just want to say before I present them that I understood totally what the Chairman of Management Board was saying in his earlier observations.

Mr. MacDonald: The Premier likely discussed it with him.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I just understood it. Unlike the leader of the member’s party, I have no trouble in understanding the Chairman of Management Board.

Mr. Lewis: That’s entirely true, that’s exactly right.

Mr. Foulds: They both speak the same language, it is called flannel mouth.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That’s been part of the NDP leader’s problem on other matters.

DESTINY CANADA CONFERENCE

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in tabling today the final report of the Destiny Canada Destinée Conference. As members will recall, the conference, held in Toronto in June, was hosted by York University with the support of the government of Ontario.

I think those of us in this House who participated in the conference would agree that it was worthwhile and an initial step in involving the people of Canada in the process of resolving the issues now facing Confederation.

It successfully brought together over 500 Canadians from all walks of life and from all regions of the country, representing the full divergence of views which exist across Canada on these issues. The conference provided a unique opportunity for the participants to consider and discuss both the strengths and strains of our federal system and to reflect on possible solutions.

I personally attended several of the sessions, as did the leaders of the parties opposite or their representatives. What I witnessed, Mr. Speaker, both in the plenary and workshop sessions was a frank, lively and, I believe, healthy debate. As a result, many of the participants reported that the experience significantly affected their attitudes and views. That in itself was an immensely satisfying first step to those of us who encouraged this experiment in having Canadians, and not just their governments, look seriously at what they want their country to be.

I will be sending copies of this report to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Premiers of the other provinces, the members of the Task Force on Canadian Unity and all the conference delegates. At the same time, I will be urging them to support various initiatives arising from this conference. Already a number of delegates have expressed interest in helping to organize similar conferences in their region or province. That result, too, is highly encouraging and serves as a useful counter to those who say that Canadians are indifferent to this critical issue.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the president of York University and the chairman of our Advisory Committee on Confederation, Mr. H. I. Macdonald, for his efforts in organizing and chairing the conference. I would also like to thank the member of the advisory committee, the staff at York University, and the Ontario public servants who worked hard to make this conference the success that it was. Above all, I would like to thank the participants from our own province and from every part of Canada who gave freely of their time and energies and who made it the notable event it was.

Mixing and talking with many delegates, as I did, gave me a very solid impression of the commitment to their country of many of the people we serve.

Mr. Speaker, the task is obviously just begun and many difficult situations lie ahead; but if the initiative taken at York, along with the more recent conference at the University of Toronto and such national endeavours as the Robarts-Pepin Task Force are any indication and serve as examples for the rest of the country, where this discussion must continue, then I think that at long last Canadians will start to give their elected representatives some directions, which I earnestly hope will lead to a great national reconciliation, which in the months ahead it will be the serious obligation of all of us to secure.

LAYOFF OF NICKEL WORKERS

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a further statement on the situation in the Sudbury basin.

On October 31, I and members of the government met with the Sudbury committee, as it is called, which included the following people: Doug Frith, chairman of the Regional Municipality of Sudbury; Jim Gordon, mayor of Sudbury; Elmer McVey, president of the Sudbury and District Labour Council; Jack Gignac, president of the Mine, Mill and Smelter Workers local; Dave Patterson, president of Local 6500, United Steelworkers of America; Brian Seville, president of Sudbury and District Chamber of Commerce; and Michael Atkins, president, Laurentian Publishing Company. As you can see, Mr. Speaker, the committee represents a wide cross-section of that community.

I must say, Mr. Speaker, to avoid any possible misunderstanding or disappointment, that there appears to be no quick or easy solution in sight, although I am encouraged by the fact that the company and the union, I believe, are having constructive discussions at this time. At the same time, recognizing the seriousness of the situation facing Sudbury, I was tremendously impressed with the positive and practical approach of this group.

The committee will be chaired by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller), and will have the following members: the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier), the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett), the Minister of Labour (B. Stephenson). The secretary of the committee will be the Deputy Minister of Northern Affairs, Mr. Tom Campbell. Other members of cabinet will be involved when appropriate as the committee deals with various specialized areas.

The cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities will have as its first order of business the detailed consideration of the presentation made to the government by the Sudbury committee. It will also assume responsibility on behalf of the government for ongoing discussions with Inco, Falconbridge and other employers in the Sudbury area, with the representatives of the workers in Sudbury and with the regional municipality and the city.

I am also pleased to announce that the government, through the Ministry of Northern Affairs, is prepared to provide financial assistance to the proposed Sudbury Economic Development Task Force, which is being organized locally to promote investment, diversification and expansion in the Sudbury region. Funds will be made available to the task force to carry out the necessary studies which will be required, and to actively promote industrial expansion and diversification. The cabinet committee will work with the task force and will provide fullest co-operation with this Sudbury initiative.

Mr. George Ormerod, the director of the new Ministry of Northern Affairs office in Sudbury, and Mr. Ron Christie, deputy regional director, Ministry of Natural Resources, will be available to provide local contact between the task force and the government.

The scope and attention of the cabinet committee on the economic future of mining communities will go well beyond the current difficult problems in the Sudbury area, although that will be, of course, the first item of business. It will be consulting with mining companies, unions, municipal leaders and other interested groups in order to develop government policies which will assist all of us in dealing with the problems and opportunities common to communities affected by international mining markets.

Mr. Cassidy: They will be doing what you should have done years ago.

Hon. Mr. Davis: As its work progresses the cabinet committee may have referred to it broader questions relating to problems common to all resource-based communities.

At this time I also wish to respond in a positive way to one proposal which the Sudbury committee emphasized. The government will proceed as soon as possible with the construction of its new Sudbury building. This will represent an investment in excess of $10 million and underlines in the clearest possible terms the continued confidence of the Ontario government in the future of that community.

In relation to the announced layoffs at Inco, the government House leader (Mr. Welch) will, after consultation with the other two House leaders -- and I understand there was some discussion at noon today -- introduce a motion to enable the standing committee on resources development to review this matter.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, may I say there’s no question in my mind that the Sudbury area specifically, and the mining communities of northern Ontario in general, have an extremely important and continuing role to play in the economy of our province. Mining provides the base for jobs and prosperity for hundreds of thousands of our people, both in the north and in related enterprises throughout Ontario. Production from our mines accounts for well over $2.5 billion annually. Apart from the automotive industry, mining accounts for some 25 per cent of our remaining exports.

This, of course, is important for the balance of payments and economic well being, not only of this province but for the country as a whole.

It is clear that we must do all in our power to preserve and expand this industry, because it is not just the people of the north who are affected but all of us are as well.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that if all of us can take an example from the determination and the dedication, and the positive contribution which the Sudbury committee has made to this discussion, then I am sure we can find answers which will ensure the economic future of the mining communities of this province.

INCOME TAX REDUCTION

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, at the recent federal-provincial meeting of finance ministers, I proposed a measure to stimulate the economy through increased consumer spending. I suggested that the provinces should reduce their retail sales tax by two points, with the cost underwritten by the federal government.

The federal government reviewed the situation and chose to implement a personal income tax cut of $100 for low- and middle-income taxpayers. Although not quite as immediate or direct in impact as a sales tax cut, this measure will nonetheless have a positive stimulative impact. I was pleased to see that the Minister of Finance incorporated other features I suggested.

The tax cut is temporary and it gets the money into the consumer’s hands quickly, Mr. Speaker. After careful consideration, I have decided to eliminate Ontario’s income tax for persons with low incomes to provide a further boost to consumer spending and confidence in 1978. As a result, tax filers with up to $2,310 taxable income -- $132 Ontario tax payable -- will have their Ontario tax reduced to zero for 1978. This replaces the 1977 reduction of $88 and continues to ensure that for virtually all Ontario taxpayers no Ontario income tax will be payable where no federal income tax is payable.

This important initiative will cost the province $20 million in 1978 and will remove an additional 140,000 people from our tax rolls. This means that almost 700,000 people in Ontario who would otherwise have income tax liability are now free of tax under Ontario’s tax reduction program. As a result of this enriched program, a family of four having an income up to $8,360 will pay no Ontario income tax in 1978.

This significant move will help to strengthen the disposable incomes of those people most affected by rising prices, and I am confident it will encourage consumer spending.

[2:30]

ORAL QUESTIONS

ANACONDA LAYOFF

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Premier:

In view of the statement of the president of Anaconda Canada Limited that the Etobicoke mill faces being shut down partly because the United States parent is not allowing the Etobicoke plant to compete in US markets, and knowing this pattern to be a common one in Ontario, did the Premier, in his talks with Japanese officials, insist that exports, even in competition with the parent company, be included as a condition of any agreement allowing Japanese firms to locate in Ontario? If so, can he show us any statements he may have made in this regard?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I not only did not attach conditions when I had discussions with the business community in Japan, I made a point of avoiding them because one of the situations we run into from time to time when these matters are raised outside Canada is they suggest to us there are already a lot of conditions. I raised with the Japanese business community what I think is the very real potential of joint ventures, or the use of technology with Canadian capital, and the opportunity in terms of our producers here entering the Japanese marketplace; but, Mr.

Speaker, I did not lay down a set of conditions to which I think at the outset the average businessman might say, “Fine, you are here seeking investment from us at the same time as you are setting down a lot of ground rules”; which may or may not make sense and which would be inhibiting I think, in their view, to any, shall we say positive type discussions.

While I recognize the Leader of the Opposition has had vast experience in these matters, my limited experience has been that if you are trying to interest somebody in something, if you are saying to them, “We think there is potential here for you, there is an opportunity for you to see some return on investment”; that you don’t create that interest at the same time as you lay out a lot of ground rules and throw up a lot of potentially misunderstood barriers in that process.

So I would have to say to the Leader of the Opposition, no, I didn’t.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary, does the Premier not recognize, and this is something to which the Treasurer has alluded from time to time, that one of the grave problems we have in our manufacturing industry is its lack of export activity, and that one of the main reasons for that is that so many of our manufacturing enterprises are branch plants that are forbidden, as Anaconda was, to export in competition with the mother company? Why continue this same practice which has been so disastrous for us up until recent times?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not continuing any practice. I would think, with respect, that the most logical and intelligent way to go, and the route that these discussions should take -- whether it is Japan, West Germany, the United Kingdom or wherever -- is first to explain the potential that exists here to the possible investors, to give them as much encouragement as is possible, rather than to say, “Yes, we want your investment, but here are the rules.” They may be inhibiting, they may be somewhat different in our province from the other provinces of Canada.

It may be that if they locate in Ontario they will have more problems than if they locate in Quebec, Manitoba or Alberta. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition this is one of the problems of perception that exists outside this country. He understands and I understand the differences in provincial responsibility and federal jurisdiction, but I have news for the Leader of the Opposition, not everybody understands, shall we say the federated nature of this country. Among the things they find confusing are 10 different economic policies.

Mr. Warner: There are only nine, really.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say with respect that while I recognize fully the implications of branch plants in relationship to the question of exports, I also recognize, Mr. Speaker, that this province -- I won’t speak for the country, I’ll leave that to the member -- still needs investment from outside the borders of the province of Ontario.

If we want to continue to grow, and grow in a healthy way in the 1970s and 1980s, with respect there will have to be this kind of investment. I don’t think you attract it by saying, “Yes, we want you, but there are the rules”; which they may or may not totally understand. I think that would be the second or third step down the road.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: I want to say that I am shocked by the Premier’s lack of concern when 875 jobs at Anaconda are going down the drain, largely because of the embargo on exports imposed by the American parent. Is the government concerned about the restrictions on exports which are put on branch plants in this country; and what concrete steps is it taking to get those embargoes on exports lifted?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, once again I don’t want to be provocative, but I say with reasonable respect for the hon. member that I did not in fact say I wasn’t concerned about the jobs at Anaconda.

Mr. Cassidy: The Premier did say that.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to him that if he were any sort of honourable person he might just apologize for suggesting this government did have a lack of concern.

Mr. Warner: What are you going to do?

Mr. Martel: Come on.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I was replying to a question of the Leader of the Opposition, who asked did I say to the potential Japanese investor, here are a whole set of ground rules, one in particular, at this stage of what will be, I think, long-term discussions. If the hon. member is asking me if I am concerned about Anaconda, the answer to that is yes.

I would say further, Mr. Speaker, that this government is making every effort to see if we can find a solution to the situation at Anaconda. The minister can correct me if I am wrong, but because of our interventions in the past few days a further extension on determination of its future has been granted --

Mr. Warner: A snail moves faster.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- subject to the consideration of the union, which is meeting, I believe, this afternoon.

So if the member would update himself he might find out just how interested this government is in Anaconda and that we are making a very genuine effort to see that that company stays in business.

Mr. Makarchuk: Why do you wait until it closes down before you do anything?

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Does the Premier not agree that what he is basically suggesting for us is that we continue going down the road which we have followed these many years, of inviting foreign capital in to serve the domestic economy rather than to export; and does he not recognize that a change in this is absolutely essential? This has to be resolved before we consider such matters as going to free trade in Ontario, which under these circumstances would be absolutely disastrous for us.

Mr. S. Smith: What about the speech the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) made about it?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Read it.

Mr. S. Smith: But not in Japan.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The Leader of the Opposition hasn’t the foggiest idea of what was said in Japan.

Mr. S. Smith: Yes I have.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, he doesn’t.

Mr. S. Smith: The Premier just told us; he put on no restrictions at all.

Mr. Lawlor: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker: As a matter of property and civil rights in the province, a contract, would the government give some consideration to bringing legislation before this House barring that export condition, which makes Anaconda Canada relatively -- and I think completely, totally -- unmarketable to other consortia forming in this country?

Hon. Mr Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would really have to seek some legal guidance.

Mr. Breaugh: He just gave it to you.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I would say to the hon. member for Oshawa, the latest participant in the lists, and I wish him well --

Mr. Breaugh: Watch that kind of comment now.

Mr. Swart: You are hurting his chances.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- and I think he’s got a lot of ground to catch up.

Mr Lawlor: The member for Oshawa doesn’t have a question properly before the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would just say to the hon. member for Lakeshore --

Mr. Lawlor: The government is going to have to remove the export bar.

Mr. Lawlor: No, I am saying it’s the Premier’s.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is not a legal opinion.

Mr. Lewis: The government won’t be able to arrange to have the company sold.

Mr. Sargent: Supplementary: In view of the embarrassment of the Premier’s Tokyo junket, I would ask him if he could tell the House what research he had done by a multi-million dollar corporation like this province on the feasibility of raising funds. In his future search for investment capital is the Premier going to do some more comprehensive study than he’s done at this point?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I really didn’t know that that trip was referred to as the Tokyo junket. I find that very intriguing. I would also suggest that the purpose of the trip maybe didn’t come through in the

interpretation given by some, although it did in some reports that I read. I really must say that as I read the various reports in the press I’m not sure that those who were with us were always at the same meetings; but that is just an observation.

Mr. Warner: You didn’t want them in on the meetings.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say we weren’t there seeking funds. As a matter of fact, I think if we were there seeking funds for the government or for Hydro, the fact of the matter is the Japanese investment community would be delighted to lend funds. They have great confidence in the future of this province.

Mr. Lewis: You weren’t there paying homage, not at all; you were there to give things away.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Souvenirs.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I didn’t give a thing away. I will try to explain to the hon. member, in case he goes on any junkets to Mexico or anywhere else to sell his particular products. My advice to him is simply this: I was there to explore, along with a group of Canadian businessmen primarily from Ontario, the potential of their selling in the Japanese market. That was one of the basic purposes. And if he can consult --

Mr. S. Smith: Not nickel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, don’t take it from me, speak to those who were there, they were relatively optimistic at the success they achieved and the potential that exists for them.

Mr. S. Smith: But not nickel.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect to the other aspect of the “junket,” yes, it was to say to the Japanese business community that we thought there was potential for joint ventures, in particular the use of some of their technology in this province. I have to tell the hon. member that some of this has already taken place. There’s no export restriction. I would invite the hon. member to come with me to a particular plant in the north part of Mississauga where they are now making ball bearings for just about every nation in the world, using Canadian employees --

Mr. Sargent: What time can you go?

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- constituents of the member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones), I believe -- with Japanese technology. Both firms are receiving a reasonable return on investment, which I think is an ideal example of the kind of thing that can and will be developed.

The member might sell ball bearings in Mexico.

Mr. Sargent: How many Hong Kong suits did you buy? The Minister of Industry and Tourism got a couple.

Hon. Mr. Davis: One.

GATT NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. S. Smith: A question of the Treasurer: In anticipation of the GATT talks the next year, I understand the federal government has asked the provincial finance ministers to identify strong and weak sectors in their provinces, and to outline the type of help they would need in the event of reduced tariffs. Has Ontario provided the federal government with this information? If so, can we see it? If not, does the government intend to develop and make public a position on which sectors of the Ontario economy require protection and which do not?

Hon. Mr. McKeough: Mr. Speaker, that’s a question that should be addressed to the Minister of Industry and Tourism who is our contact point on these matters.

Mr. Laughren: Contact point?

Mr. S. Smith: I’ll redirect that question, thank you.

Mr. Lewis: To the contact point.

Mr. S. Smith: To the contact, if he’s out of the barber’s chair.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The Leader of the Opposition obviously doesn’t recognize that if a person’s qualified and re-educates himself for a particular position, he then is willing to be accepted by our government.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Who did your hair?

Mr. S. Smith: You have done very well.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Obviously the Leader of the Opposition hasn’t qualified for that yet.

Mr. Lewis: You do a great job with textiles, what about tennis?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In the matter of the GATT negotiations, which are the ones I believe the Leader of the Opposition is referring to --

Mr. Lewis: The Gatineau.

[2:45]

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- we’ve had constant meetings with our federal representatives in Ottawa in discussing various sectors of the industrial community, and what can we as Canadians rather than just Ontarians -- because they are meeting with all the provinces -- what can we do to strengthen certain areas of our economy and our industrial community, and where are the others that we may very well have to trade off.

Mr. Speaker, I do not at this time intend to get into the full description, because most of the discussions are on a confidential basis, as I believe the members will appreciate. Disclosure at this time would show our hand to the other nations at the GATT negotiating table.

Mr. S. Smith: By way of supplementary: An

article appeared October 29 in The Financial Post, and I quote in part: “Ottawa asked provincial ministers during a recent meeting here to identify strong and weak sectors in their provinces and outline the type of help they would need. According to reports, few specifics were proffered.” Could the minister simply tell us, first of all, whether he has made such a list known to Ottawa? Secondly, does the government possess an industrial strategy for Ontario comparable to the national economic development strategy the Treasurer keeps urging on Ottawa?

Do we in this province have a strategy and would the minister care to share it with the House?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In relationship to the first question on the soft areas of the industrial community: yes, we have had discussions on specific sectors with Ottawa via the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, through the Minister of Finance who will carry Canada’s brief forward to the GATT negotiations. Those areas are still under discussion as they relate not only to Ontario, but as they relate to the province of Quebec and the other provinces in this country. Ontario is just part of the input, but I am sure the significance of the Ontario input will be taken into consideration when drawing the final position which Canada will likely take at those negotiations.

As far as the second portion of the hon. member’s question is concerned, the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) asked a question the other night in estimates, regarding the sector analysis we have been making on the various industries in Ontario. It is the background information, and the further analyses being made by the industrial communities relating to the various sectors that is being used in our presentation and our conclusions in relationship to our discussions with Ottawa on the GATT negotiations.

Mr. Cassidy: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: What warning or advance notice does the Ontario government intend to give to those industries considered soft and which it is prepared to treat as the sacrificial victims on the altar of free trade in the GATT negotiations, so that they can begin to prepare now for the adjustment --

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: No leadership speeches, that’s not fair.

Mr. Cassidy: -- or for the movement into other industrial activities that is inevitably their lot under the government’s policies?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just because of speeches like that, the member will never make it.

An hon. member: I am willing to bet money.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: He is running fourth in a three-man race.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, of course it is not our policy. Very clearly, at this time we are involved in preliminary discussions in relationship to positions Canada might take. I have no understanding where we’ll eventually end up in the final GATT negotiations or whether we’ll be a signing partner in those negotiations.

But I can say to the hon. member that the federal government and the government of this province, and the governments of the other provinces, indeed governments around the world, realize that if there are to be some adjustments in tariffs relating to specific portions of industries in various countries, there will have to be a very general period of adjustment. I think the member will remember that in our estimates this morning we were talking about the period of time and that it’s likely to take from the early 1980s until the early 1990s before that adjustment period comes to conclusion.

Mr. Horner from the federal government, and Mr. Chretien prior to him, said that the Canadian government will in time -- after complete discussion by the provinces -- bring forward policies for adjustments that will be made to those sectors that could be poorly affected by some of the downward trends in tariffs in the world.

Mr. Warner: Why don’t you go visit some?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Why doesn’t the hon. member for Scarborough-Ellesmere resign?

Mr. S. Smith: As a final supplementary to the minister, does he share the rather sanguine point of view of the Treasurer that freer trade is inevitable, that it’s just a matter of adjusting to it; and does he share my concern that Ontario does not seem to have been raising its voice in favour of protecting Ontario’s labour-intensive industries against free trade? We’re in the hands of rather inveterate free traders negotiating on the part of the federal government; why has Ontario not stood up for protection of Ontario’s industries?

Mr. Lewis: Right, why don’t you?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I’m sure the Leader of the Opposition has not been following the situation very closely. If I may go back to the fact that in 1974 it was this province that raised the first voice relating to the textile industries and the troubles they were in. That’s a labour-intensive industry to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. Nixon: When you were importing grape juice.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: It was this province that persuaded the federal government, along with our colleagues in Manitoba and Quebec, that we should put quotas on to protect that industry. Those quotas are now in place.

Mr. S. Smith: Why change now?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Horner and Mr. Chretien previously said that they would remain in place, that is at the 1975 level.

It could very well be that in the GATT negotiations textiles, on a world basis, will be excluded from that agreement. It has been clearly said at GATT that there would be areas of the economy or industrial sectors that will not come under it, and that each country will then be left to do its negotiating with whatever country is going to supply it on a quota basis or whatever it might be.

Mr. S. Smith: But are we pressing for that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have been pressing in that field, in the leather goods field and in several others. Ontario has been bringing the federal government along in designing some policies. I make no apologies for it. There are some in the member’s party who have raised the fact --

Mr. S. Smith: Did the Premier hear that?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- that when we reduce the amount of imports what we’re doing in reality is raising the retail prices, because Canadian goods are higher in price.

Mr. S. Smith: You’ve had something to do with it then.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: There are times when we have to suffer some of the consequences --

Mr. Nixon: Oh, the province has got something to do with it after all?

Mr. S. Smith: It is a federal matter, Bill.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- but if we’re to have employment we’re likely going to have to restrict some of the cheaper, or less expensive imports into this country. Frankly, we’ll continue to push to protect the labour-intensive industries.

Mr. Breithaupt: That is not the Treasurer’s view.

Mr. S. Smith: This is news to you is it, Darcy?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: May I conclude with the remark that the Treasurer -- if you read his remarks over the last period of time -- and I have an understanding and agreement.

Mr. Lewis: He is moderating, he is changing his views.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: He’s absolutely correct that in this day and age in this world there is a strong movement towards freer trade --

Mr. Foulds: He is running for leadership; he and John Rhodes.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: -- and it’s a matter of how quickly some people would like us to get to the free trade position.

Mr. Speaker: We don’t need a speech; just answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am answering the question, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve spent 23 minutes on the first two questions.

Mr. Lewis: He is defending the Treasurer. Have a little pity, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I’m not only defending the Treasurer but also defending the position of Ontario and Canada in the negotiations at GATT. We are as compassionate about the industries of this country and this province as any political group, including the member’s.

Mr. Lewis: It is Darcy’s shift to the people, it’s just like switching to radicalism. Darcy is in his dotage; and as the twilight years advance, Darcy moves with them.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Lewis: I have a question of the Premier, if I may. Now, almost 15 years after he was first requested, the Premier has set up a cabinet committee on the future of the mining communities in northern Ontario. Would he be prepared to ask the committee, as one of its first undertakings, to implement the recommendations of his government’s Design for Development: Northeastern Ontario, which he has allowed to lie dormant for fully five years?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think in fairness, and the leader of that party always endeavours to be fair --

Mr. Lewis: To be fair? Of course, thank you.

Mr. Swart: He succeeds.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I say he endeavours to be fair; some of his listeners say he endeavours to be fair. I would say to him that we have, in fact, made some moves with respect to the Design for Development: Northeastern Ontario. I fully acknowledge it’s one thing to develop a conceptual plan and to have a design, it is not as easy to bring about the completion or the practical application of that.

Mr. Conway: That’s what they said in Amherstburg.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Is there some supplementary?

This government, I think, has demonstrated very conclusively, through the efforts we’ve been making in northeastern and in northern Ontario, that we intend to do everything we can to see to its economical and social development.

Mr. Martel: What is that?

Mr. Lewis: Tell us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say we have done a lot more and we haven’t been nearly as negative, we haven’t thrown up nearly as many fictitious roadblocks, as some members opposite when they talk about the north.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary. Does the Premier realize that his statement today was entirely bankrupt of any new initiative, save building on the pilings that are already there in Sudbury. This new building isn’t a new announcement. The statement is entirely bankrupt of any new initiative, and why doesn’t he implement some of the specific recommendations on secondary manufacturing and associated industries for the Sudbury basin which he’s had hanging around for years?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I don’t think it’s really a question of having recommendations hanging around for years. It’s a question of having a fairly logical plan that needs a fair amount of understanding and a fair amount of assistance in its practical application.

Mr. Warner: You don’t intend to do anything --

Mr. Martel: After 34 years.

Mr. Lewis: -- while people are laid off.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, no one has talked more than I have -- including the Minister of Industry and Tourism, the Treasurer or anyone else -- about the need and the desirability for secondary industry in northeastern and northern Ontario.

Mr. Martel: Don’t talk, do something about it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have developed policies that make it more practical, but I cannot say to the leader of the New Democratic Party that we as a government alone can succeed in this particular operation.

Mr. Foulds: Name one.

Mr. Lewis: You can do something -- anything.

Hon. Mr. Davis: If he wants to belittle -- and I say this to him very genuinely -- if he wants to belittle the commitment that I gave today with respect to the capital investment by this province in the future of Sudbury --

Mr. Lewis: No, I don’t belittle it. That’s not enough, I welcome it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: -- I suggest he go to Sudbury this weekend and say, “We don’t think the government should build that building.” I challenge him to go up there and say that to them.

Mr. Lewis: Oh, nonsense I You have already committed yourself to do it; it’s an old project.

Mr. Foulds: It is a Band-Aid, and you know it.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River with a supplementary.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let the leader of the NDP go up and tell them that.

Mr. Martel: That doesn’t sell. Why doesn’t the Premier come with me?

An hon. member: Sit down, Elie.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, order. It’s your question period and you are wasting it. We haven’t completed three questions yet and we have used 27 minutes of question period. Now if you want to fritter away the time, let it be on your heads, not mine.

The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Supplementary: The Premier’s statement dealt pretty well exclusively with mining communities. Does the study, which is so late in coming, envisage dealing with one-resource-industry towns across northern Ontario as well, particularly including the communities that are based on timber extraction, pulp and paper?

Hon. Mr. Davis: As I said in my statement, the priority obviously at this moment is the Sudbury basin. Quite obviously not just this committee, but the government -- and the hon. member is as aware of it, I hope, as anyone in this House -- has endeavoured on an ongoing basis to stimulate growth and development of other resources in the northern part of the province of Ontario.

On occasion some members of this House have appeared to be somewhat negative and almost inhibiting of the possibility and potential of some of those developments, if memory serves me correctly. Certainly we intend to consider these other aspects of the problem, including the pulp and paper industry, without any question.

Mr. Mackenzie: When? In 1985?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You should read some of the things you have said over the years.

Mr. Martel: That’s right. And if the Premier had followed them, we might be somewhere today. He has done nothing except sell out the north.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Sudbury East allow the member for Nickel Belt to put his question?

Mr. Martel: You might say the same thing to the Premier.

Mr. Laughren: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is the Premier aware that his response to the Sudbury committee will simply absorb some of the already high unemployment rate in the building trades in the Sudbury district and, further, does his announcement mean he now has accepted the inevitability of the layoff and he can do nothing to prevent it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I thought I made it very clear in my statement that I was bringing the members as up to date as I could with respect to the discussions we had with the Sudbury committee. As I told Mr. Frith I would, I endeavoured in my statement to provide our reaction to it as soon as I could.

I must remind the hon. member, in case he didn’t get the same sense in his own constituency, that one of the priorities they were looking to us for -- if that is grammatically correct -- was some decision on the particular building that I just mentioned. Maybe the hon. member doesn’t think it’s a priority --

Mr. Laughren: Of course. Don’t be stupid. Don’t be dense. No one is saying the building should not be built. We are asking why that is all you are doing?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the hon. member, we are dealing with those matters that have been brought to us and we are reacting in a positive, constructive way.

Mr. Warner: Oh, yeah. You’re positive!

Hon Mr. Davis: Of course it doesn’t relate as to the layoff itself. I said that in the statement. I said that half a dozen times in this House.

Mr. Warner: Answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Davis: What we are looking for and will continue to look for is a way to look after the future of the economy of that area, to demonstrate the confidence of this government in that part of the province, and we think this is a very tangible expression of that confidence. This is what the Sudbury committee brought to us; it was first on their list of priorities.

Mr. Lewis: It was not, as a matter of fact.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am very disappointed that the hon. member doesn’t recognize this initiative from his own fellow workers, because the union was there and this was what they wanted as well; and we are saying today that we are doing it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Davis: When he gets this information back home, he may find that the union leadership also supports this particular initiative.

Mr. Lewis: Well, of course. Quit playing games.

Mr. Speaker: We’ve had sufficient supplementaries. The hon. member for Scarborough West with a new question.

Mr. Martel: Just one supplementary question.

Mr. Kerrio: No, it’s not your turn.

Mr. Martel: What kind of game are you playing.

[3:00]

Mr. Lewis: A further question of the Premier, if I may: Within the last fortnight or so, have either the Premier or any of his cabinet colleagues discussed the future of Falconbridge with Falconbridge in the Sudbury basin?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I can’t speak for any of my colleagues; I have not discussed Falconbridge in the last 10 days or two weeks. I have been really very busily pursuing Inco. I haven’t talked to Falconbridge.

Mr. Lewis: May I ask the Premier, phrasing it carefully, since there are a number of disquieting rumours now in the Sudbury area and elsewhere about Falconbridge’s intentions in the year 1978, would it be possible for him to satisfy himself and perhaps make a statement to the House and to the community as to what Falconbridge’s specific economic plans are in the immediate future?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, either I shall or the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. F. S. Miller) will endeavour to get as much information as we can that is available to us and we are more than prepared to share it with the members of the House.

HOME RENEWAL PROGRAM

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Housing. Given the fact that the Ontario Home Renewal Plan has been successful in upgrading the housing stock in communities and has created employment for small businesses who do the work in repairing those homes, does the minister feel that the ministry’s decision not to give further allocation of funds under the plan during this fiscal year should be reversed, and that further allocations be given pursuant to the formula devised by his ministry?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, the funding that was available for that particular program as approved in the estimates has been totally disbursed to the various communities. The success of the program is quite evident, and I agree with the hon. member. There just are no more funds, and far be it from me, sir, to spend any funds from my estimates that haven’t been approved by this House.

Mr. Bolan: Mr. Speaker, supplementary: In view of the fact that the amount for the Ontario Home Renewal Program voted for in estimates on June 29, 1977, was $20 million, and in view of the fact that the amount advanced by the Housing ministry is $16,185,921.28 -- and those are the minister’s figures obtained from his ministry as of yesterday afternoon -- doesn’t he feel that he should at least allow the municipalities the full amount apportioned, pursuant to the estimate voted on, instead of short-changing them by $4 million? If not, where is the $4 million going?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should be aware of the fact that the figure he has is the amount of money that has already been disbursed to the various municipalities under the program, but that the $4 million he is talking about is money that will have to be disbursed before the end of the fiscal year. It is probably already committed to municipalities. We have advanced that amount of money, but the balance of the money has already been requested and will be allocated. The total $20 million will be spent. I can assure the hon. member we could have spent a lot more of it if we had had it in our estimates.

Mr. Makarchuk: A supplementary to the same minister: In view of the fact that the OHRP program is one of the most useful employment projects the government has in the province of Ontario at this time -- it is useful in terms of employment and it is useful in terms of assistance to small business -- would the minister consider going to the Treasury Board and trying to obtain added funds to continue the employment in the winter months?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, there will be various requests made by my ministry to the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Auld) and the members of that board. I will have to await their decision.

I just wanted to point out to the hon. member that I appreciate his and other members’ comments on this program, because it has been very successful. It has done the two things that you suggested, but it has done one more. It has also upgraded the homes for people who otherwise could not have afforded it.

I would like to clarify one point to the hon. member for Nipissing. When I mentioned the expenditure of the $20 million, $2 million of that had been allocated under the Ontario Home Renewal Plan rental program. So it was $18 million to the residential program -- individual homes -- and $2 million allocated under the rental portion of that program.

Mr. Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Point of privilege.

Mr. Foulds: Make it after the question period.

Mr. Speaker: Point of privilege?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I rise on a point of privilege relating to a story that appeared in this morning’s Toronto Globe and Mail --

An hon. member: Get down on your knees and do it.

Mr. Lewis: Would you like us to set aside a special portion of every day for you to apologize?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I don’t see any particular emergency. That can be brought up immediately after question period.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL CUTBACKS

Mr.

Dukszta: A question to the Minister of Health: In light of the fact that all Ontario psychiatric hospitals are at present engaged in an exercise of cutting six per cent from their 1978-79 budgets, a cutback of millions of dollars, resulting in the further elimination of 60 positions from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre in addition to the 170 positions that have been eliminated since 1974, and the further elimination of 102 positions from the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital in addition to the 60 layoffs which occurred in 1976, would the minister please tell the House why he is further contributing to the province’s unemployment problem and reducing the level of health care in Ontario’s psychiatric hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, the member, unfortunately, through whatever source, is misinformed with his figures.

Mr. Dukszta: Supplementary: Mr. Speaker, can the minister then correct me on two counts: 1. whether my figures are incorrect; 2. whether he is proposing to introduce the cuts and reduce the staff positions in both hospitals?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, in reviewing all aspects of the operation of the ministry, I’ve indicated to my staff and I think I have indicated to staff of the various institutions as I’ve gone around the province, that the one area in particular, let’s say two areas which have the highest priority for me are the psychiatric programs and ambulance services.

While, as the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) indicated in his statement in September, there will be a reduction in the over-all size of the civil service, the government service, it will be mainly through attrition. All I can tell you is that I’m looking at every program of my ministry between now and going into the next fiscal year, but those two areas have a very high, in fact, the highest priority.

Now let me say that the director of the branch has met with the administrators of all the hospitals on a number of occasions over the past few months as we’ve been working towards the next budget for the ministry. There have been a number of planning exercises -- sort of, if you will, “what if” exercises. Out of that may have come some of the figures which you’ve quoted today. They are inaccurate. They do not reflect any of my plans.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, is --

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary. The hon. member for --

Mr. Lewis: Hamilton West it is.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. S. Smith: Supplementary: Could the minister, when he is checking these figures, check into the situation at Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital and tell us whether it is a fact that of 12 new psychiatric nursing assistants hired in August, five were given part-time contracts till March 1978 and six are being laid off at the end of November?

Mr. Speaker: I don’t think that’s a supplementary to the original question.

Mr. S. Smith: I’m sorry. I thought it was a matter of similar nature and he was speaking on Lakeshore as well.

An hon. member: That’s right.

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: Mr. Speaker, I’ll be glad to look into that. That may well be and it depends what they were hired for, whether it was a particular program of a short duration or whatever. With respect to the first part of your question, I don’t have to check into the other figures; I know that they do not, as I said, reflect my plans.

Mr. Lewis: You are going to get the rules thrown at you now, Mr. Speaker.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, under provisions of standing order number 42(b), I wish to raise a matter of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: I have already asked you to refrain from raising it until after the question period. You could have done it before the question period had you chosen to do so.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: You can’t question it. You can challenge it if you want, but you can’t debate it.

Mr. Lewis: He is what you call an erudite masochist, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the last question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We’ve had enough supplementaries. We’ve only had five questions in 40 minutes of question period.

WEST END CRECHE

Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services.

Mr. Lewis: Keith, ask him if he has a point of privilege.

Mr. Gregory: I might ask the minister the same thing.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Yes, I have, and a legal opinion to back it up too.

Mr. Riddell: Get on with your question.

Mr. Swart: Is this collusion?

Mr. Gregory: In view of the announcement that was made several days ago by a Dr. Crowcroft who is the director of the West End Creche in Mississauga that this branch would be closed due to lack of funds, and in view of the statement by him that this branch has proved successful and is servicing 24 children and that the money saved from this project will be spent in expanding the Euclid Avenue offices of that organization, I would like to ask the minister if he would consider interceding in this matter to retain this very valuable branch in Mississauga.

Hon. Mr. Norton: One way or the other I was bound to get on my feet before the end of the question period.

Mr. Conway: The question is, can you stay on your feet.

Hon. Mr. Norton: According to the information I have at this time, and I can assure the member that I have been pursuing this matter, the organization in question first contacted my ministry some six months ago with a request for funds to expand its operation at the site in Mississauga. They were advised at that time that we did not have funds for expansion of their program. We heard nothing further from them until very recently when we heard the announcement that they intended to close.

I have asked my staff to contact Dr. Crowcroft, and I understand they have been in contact with him to discuss with him steps that might be taken in order to maintain the operation in Mississauga. I would also point out that there appears from some comments attributed to members of the staff to be some feeling on the part of the staff that even with present levels of funding the operation could continue in that location. I hope to have further information shortly.

Mr. Gregory: Supplementary: If all else fails, would the minister consider recommending funds be made available to continue this operation?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I am not sure that additional funds are required in this situation because the organization is at present being funded at more than one site. The indications I have, at least at this point, are that the decision to bring the Mississauga operation to an end is not entirely one based on the level of funding but rather related more to matters of the opinion of certain persons that it ought to be expanded or discontinued at that site.

If the Mississauga operation is terminated, certainly I would see what could be done in order perhaps to reallocate existing funds in order to maintain that operation.

Mr. McClellan: Supplementary: May I ask the minister if he would review the total operation of the agency? If there are needs that need to be met in other locations -- and I refer particularly to the office on Euclid which happens to be in the great riding of Bellwoods -- would he take into account the total needs of the operation and not solely the needs of the Mississauga facility?

Hon. Mr. Norton: I think it is almost self- evident that to assess the situation at Mississauga, since it is a related operation, would require a look at the total operation.

Mr. Lewis: If you kept the creche open, they might not have to impose a curfew.

HYDRO CONTRACTS

Hon. J. A. Taylor: In response to the Leader of the Opposition on Thursday, October 27, and again in answer to the member for Carleton East (Ms. Gigantes) on Monday, October 31, I said I would determine whether a contract between Ontario Hydro and Gulf Minerals Limited received approval by order in council. I also said I would pursue the matter of tabling that contract in this House.

Mr. McClellan: If there was a contract.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: That contract did not receive approval by order in council. However, I am pleased to table a copy of that contract in its entirety.

Mr. Lewis: I have a supplementary on that, Mr. Speaker, if I may. Does the minister not regard the last paragraph of Mr. Taylor’s letter to him regarding the disclosure of this contract to be offensive and not in the public interest? Has he indicated to him that the government objects to that kind of gratuitous comment on what should and should not be a matter of public knowledge?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I received that letter today and I haven’t replied as yet to that letter.

Mr. Lewis: Yes, well, I hope the minister will table the reply.

[3:15]

Mr. S. Smith: I understood the minister to say that this contract did not have the approval of the Lieutenant Governor in Council. Can he explain therefore why the negotiated contract between Denison and Hydro is before cabinet for approval.

An hon. member: Is it?

Mr. S. Smith: If the present one needs approval, why didn’t this one require approval as well?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: I didn’t remember saying that the present contracts were before cabinet for approval. The contract has not been finally negotiated. But if you are asking me whether I anticipate it will go to cabinet, the answer to that would be yes.

Mr. S. Smith: Why wasn’t this one?

An hon. member: That was the question.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, does the Leader of the Opposition have another question?

Mr. S. Smith: The question is: If you anticipate the present one will require cabinet approval, why didn’t this document have cabinet approval?

Hon. J. A. Taylor: My understanding, Mr. Speaker, is that Ontario Hydro has its own opinion that the order in council authorizing the construction of certain works and providing for the maintenance of those, plus the provisions of the Power Commission Act, gave it authority to execute that contract.

Mr. Conway: Is Hydro running the government?

Mr. S. Smith: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, it follows directly with your indulgence --

Mr. Foulds: That’s five supplementaries.

Mr. S. Smith: Do you feel we shouldn’t ask this one? You really think we shouldn’t?

Mr. Foulds: You had 23 minutes at the beginning.

Mr. Nixon: We just presented it.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If you have a very brief supplementary.

Mr. S. Smith: It’s a very brief one. If in fact Hydro is of the opinion that this contract which you have given us did not require cabinet approval, has Hydro changed its opinion with regard to the one that is at present before cabinet or does cabinet simply recognize that it should have exercised its right to approve on the previous contract but failed to do so?

Interjection.

Mr. Lewis: They are an arrogant bunch, these people.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Ignore the interjections. You are wasting time.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: May I say, Mr. Speaker, it is my determination that the current contract that has not been finalized yet go to cabinet.

RCMP TORONTO STAFF

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Monday the member for Scarborough West asked me to confirm if the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has increased its complement in Ontario recently and to inform the House what duties the additional officers are performing.

I have been advised that there are now 609 RCMP officers located in Toronto -- I think his question was Ontario; I have these figures for “located in Toronto” -- plus a support staff of 117. This brings the total to 726 people. In 1972, there were 426 RCMP officers plus a support staff of 71, for a total of 497. That is an increase of 229 since 1972.

These additional officers are required because of an increase in drug activities, commercial crime, customs and excise, immigration and passport abuses, and organized crime.

The member for Kitchener asked me to outline the changes in the force which have resulted from differing responsibilities in matters of immigration and drug control. As I have indicated, there has been an increase in the number of illegal immigrants entering Canada and in cases of misuse of passport and other documents. The RCMP, in its role as the enforcement arm of the Department of Immigration, has therefore assigned more officers to this area.

Of course, the need for drug enforcement has increased dramatically since the 1960s. In an effort to suppress the amount of drugs available in Canada, the major thrust of the RCMP is against those who import large quantities of drugs on a continuing basis.

Mr. Breithaupt: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Is the Solicitor General able to inform us as to which of those particular areas -- drugs, immigration, as well as the matters of commercial crime and customs -- have had the increases or were those figures breaking down the total increase not otherwise available?

Hon. Mr. MacBeth: I don’t have the breakdown of where they allocated them. I imagine it varies from time to time and probably there is some overlapping in the duties of the various officers.

Mr. Speaker, I gave only one answer, but I’ll be pleased to hold the answer to the other question until tomorrow.

ASSESSMENT DATA

Mr. Epp: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. In view of the fact that her ministry has computerized data which gives a block-by-block impact of market value assessment on municipalities in Ontario, I wonder whether the minister could tell the House how long this data has been available to her ministry? If it was available prior to the Blair commission doing its studies across the province, why wasn’t this information made available to the municipalities so that they could have made more intelligent and more rational replies to the commission when it toured Ontario?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: Assessment information is listed on our computing services. As to its availability in the matter in which the member questioned, we have from time to time made some of this information available. It is available through the assessment divisions to all municipalities for their general use. I’m not at all clear from his question how he would have this applied in this present situation.

Mr. Epp: Supplementary: I may just preface it to say that there are municipalities that have the information.

Mr. Speaker: Don’t preface it at all. Ask your question please.

Mr. Epp: In light of the fact that one municipality was told that it had to come down to Toronto or had to come into the ministry to copy it, without the ministry making it available or sending it out to them, would the ministry consent to send out this information to all the municipalities in Ontario so that some of them from far-reaching areas in Ontario wouldn’t have to come to Toronto to copy it out at the ministry and thereby treat all the municipalities equally in the province?

Mr. Speaker: The question has been asked.

Mr. Conway: Centralized autocracy.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I am not aware of the individual negotiations between municipalities and members of my staff.

Mr. Warner: Why not?

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: But I know we have made particular assessment information available to regions and to particular groups such as boards of education which have applied.

Mr. Wildman: You aren’t aware of your ministry.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: I am not aware that they had to come to Toronto to do some kind of a hand-copying process. I’ll look into it for the member.

ARSENIC CONTAMINATION

Mr. Mackenzie: I have a question of the Minister of Labour. In view of the urgency of the health problems of workers at the greater Red Lake area, the evidence of increased lung cancer as a result of arsenic exposure, will the minister tell this House why she has taken so long to respond to requests by the United Steelworkers Union for a meeting to discuss a matter of such importance? Further, would the minister indicate whether she would include the Minister of Health (Mr. Timbrell) in such a meeting due to the evidence of widespread arsenic contamination in the community?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Since receiving the request from Mr. Stewart Cooke, we have been collating all of the information available through several ministries on investigation and testing which has been done in that area. We have also examined the available mortality statistics to determine whether the numbers which were suggested as large numbers of arsenic-related malignancy deaths were in fact valid. From my early perusal of this, I find there is very little to relate the existence of arsenic to the kinds of deaths which these individuals suffered.

However, I would be pleased to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and the members of the House that I think the meeting with Mr. Cooke has been arranged for the beginning of next week. I would hope that by that time we shall have all the information for them so that we can discuss it freely with them.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary: In view of the fact that the problem appears to be a serious one and that there is substantial evidence that contamination is widespread throughout the community -- and it’s very difficult to separate the work place from the community in this case because of the size of the community and how close the industrial operation is -- would the minister conduct an environmental assessment study which would include human beings as well as vegetation, soil and the work place, and include the Ministry of Health in any such study?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I have certainly not in any way attempted to separate the invasion of the work place with arsenic or the invasion of the environment, and indeed it’s my understanding that representation from the Ministry of the Environment will be present at the time that we have the meeting with Mr. Cooke. The members of the occupational health branch will also be there, because they, in fact, do all of the testing and consulting for both the Ministry of the Environment, as well as for the Ministry of Labour; therefore their presence is automatic.

BENDIX LAYOFF

Mr. Eaton: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Labour: Could the minister inform us, in view of the concerns of the workers in Bendix London, whether she has been notified of any layoffs, the duration of them, and if there are indications of any further layoffs there?

Hon. B. Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the information which we have received from that company in London states that they did lay off approximately 87 of their slightly-more-than 410 workers on October 11, that a further 40, I think, were laid off on Monday or Tuesday of this week, and that the extent of the layoff is specifically for three months. There are no further layoffs contemplated.

Mr. Swart: They are in good shape, aren’t they?

Mr. Lewis: It never ends.

CHLOROFORM IN DRINKING WATER

Mr. Gaunt: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of the Environment: Since the minister indicated in today’s Globe and Mail that the presence of chloroform in drinking water in Ontario is a problem, how widespread and/or serious is the problem, and is the situation a present or potential human health hazard?

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Drinking too much water, Murray.

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, the report in that

article refers to a number of municipalities where there are high readings of chloroform. Chlorination is still the best possible treatment we know of today for drinking water. However, at the present time, or very shortly, we will undergo experiments at the Belleville plant using the ozone method -- a combination of ozone and chlorination.

As far as the future is concerned, as I say, we will continue our research. There are particular problems in some of the municipalities that were named in the article. Belleville is one of them and therefore it is logical that our research will start there and continue eventually into other types of treatment plants in the province.

Mr. Makarchuk: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact that the toxic chemicals are a result of organic material being deposited upstream by various residential areas or urban areas, is the minister prepared to improve those treatment centres upstream to ensure that organic material is not dumped into the rivers?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: Yes, Mr. Speaker. That’s part of our overall program as far as municipal effluent or industrial effluent is concerned -- to make sure that as little as possible of that goes into the streams which are a source of drinking water or drinking water supply.

Mr. Gaunt: Supplementary: Could the minister answer as to whether or not the current situation is a present or potential health hazard?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It’s not a health hazard, as the

article says, Mr. Speaker. Our director of laboratory research has indicated that it is not now a health hazard. We will continue research into improving our method of treatment. I suppose it could be, if we ignored it.

Mr. O’Neil: Supplementary.

Mr. Foulds: New question.

Mr. Speaker: Final supplementary, the hon. member for Quinte.

Mr. Foulds: Why four on that and only one on the previous question?

Mr. O’Neil: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for having met with both myself and --

Mr. Speaker: We have 30 seconds.

Mr. O’Neil: -- the members of the Belleville Public Utilities. Could he tell me when this pilot project is to begin in the city of Belleville?

Hon. Mr. Kerr: It will be pretty well up to the city of Belleville. We have advised the city of funding that we’re prepared to give them.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, I am dissatisfied with the answer that the Minister of Health has given to my question. I request permission to debate this at 10:30 tonight.

Mr. Speaker: You may do so under standing order 28.

[3:30]

ALLEGED MISAPPROPRIATION OF FUNDS

Hon. Mr. Norton: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, there is a report in this morning’s Globe and Mail, attributing to the hon. member for Bellwoods --

Mr. Reid: Have you read the

article this time?

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- with support from the hon. member for St. George of allegations that the Ministry of Community and Social Services has been misappropriating federal funds.

This is of particular concern because

section 290 and

section 292 of the Criminal Code of Canada create --

Mr. Germa: Shame.

Mr. Swart: There is some truth in it.

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- the offence of the misappropriation of money.

Mr. Breaugh: Guilty or not guilty?

Mr. Foulds: Just plead no contest.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Although I understand, if this is correct the original allegation was made in a committee of this Legislature, I’m sure it was never the intention of the privileges of this House --

Mr. Swart: Ask the member for High Park-Swansea (Mr. Ziemba) how he liked it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: -- to protect a member so that he or she might allege that a criminal offence had been committed either by another member of this House or by public servants of this province.

I explained to the hon. members at the time that this matter arose that there might well have been some disagreement about

interpretation or priorities. There may have been some misunderstanding on the parts of the members opposite of the commitments that this government has to the mentally retarded in this province. But there is absolutely no grounds for making an allegation of the commission of a criminal offence.

Mr. Foulds: There is no commitment at all.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you take this under consideration. I feel that I and the members of the ministry are entitled either to a retraction or an apology.

Mr. Peterson: Sue.

Mrs. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I was asked if I supported the principle of the statements referring to the funding. I deliberately stated that I did not support the language that had been used but I did support the philosophy that the money should have been used for community development and not for the institutions.

Hon. B. Stephenson: Why?

Mrs. Campbell: To that extent, I certainly supported what was said, but not the language. Thank you.

Mr. Lewis: That’s what we were told at the time. That’s what they promised at the time.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that the standing order 42(

b) says that whenever a matter of privilege arises it shall be taken into consideration immediately. I point out to you that we had an extensive debate on this issue yesterday afternoon in estimates and no suggestion of privilege was raised at that time. I will say that I had no intention of imputing criminal behaviour to this most delicate flower of a minister.

Mr. Foulds: You should have.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: You phoney.

Mr. Martel: Don’t be so sanctimonious.

Mr. McClellan: I invite you, Mr. Speaker, to read the record of the standing estimates committee of yesterday before you make your ruling and your ruling shall prevail.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I want to remind the hon. members, including the hon. minister who raised the point of privilege, that it’s not incumbent upon the Chair to take any action at all. The purpose of rising for a point of privilege is to alert the House to something that a member feels or finds offensive. There are provisions in standing orders, if the member who feels offended wants to pursue it further. It’s not the responsibility of the Chair to do anything further than to listen to the point of privilege.

Mr. Stong: What is the minister going to do?

Hon. Mr. Norton: It’s not only me, but people who haven’t a chance to speak in the House have been included in this allegation.

Hon. B. Stephenson: It’s absolutely terrible.

REPORTS

STANDING GENERAL GOVERNMENT COMMITTEE

Mr. Gaunt from the standing general government committee reported the following resolution:

Resolved: That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs he granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978:

Ministry of Treasury, Economics and Intergovernmental Affairs

Ministry administration program ....... $4,303,000

Finance program ........................... 373,940,000

Economic policy program ................... 4,778,000

Intergovernmental affairs program ..... 1,141,000

Local government affairs program .... 34,390,000

Central statistical services program ..... 1,812,000

STANDING MEMBERS’ SERVICES COMMITTEE

Mrs. Campbell from the standing members’ services committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted:

Your committee recommends that it agrees in principle to the recommendations of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature regarding the legislative library, and that while it recognizes the restraint program in effect at this time, it is the unanimous recommendation of the committee that Mr. Speaker should proceed forthwith to appoint an administrative librarian to the legislative library in accordance with the recommendations of the select committee on the fourth and fifth reports of the Ontario Commission on the Legislature as the initial step in phasing in the recommendations.

MOTION

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Welch moved that notwithstanding the previous order, this House will sit on Wednesday next the usual afternoon hours of 2 p.m. to 6 p.m., and on Thursday, November 10, will meet at 10 a.m. and adjourn at 2 p.m., when it will stand adjourned until Monday, November 14.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ASSESSMENT AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener moved first reading of Bill 91,

An Act to amend the Assessment Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mrs. Scrivener: The purpose of this bill is to defer for one year the change of assessed values as at present contained in the assessment rolls of the municipalities. This will accommodate the study of the recommendations of the Blair commission with respect to municipal tax reform. It will also allow time to review completely the impact of the commission’s recommendations on the tax base of each municipality and to monitor the effect of market value assessment and tax reforms on each class of property owner.

I am sure the hon. members are well aware of the far-reaching implications of the reform proposed by Mr. Blair. It is necessary, therefore, to review carefully all the submissions made to the commission and those made directly to myself or the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in order to ensure that the new tax measures are fair, equitable and do not impose a hardship on any particular group or property owner.

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Nixon moved first reading of Bill 92,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to make it a requirement that a motor vehicle registered in Ontario be insured under a motor vehicle liability policy. The bill requires that every owner provide proof of insurance protection at the time a motor vehicle permit is issued or validated.

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. O’Neil moved first reading of Bill 93,

An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act, 1974.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. O’Neil: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to increase the time for notice to be terminated where the employer plans to terminate the employment of 50 or more employees within a short period of time.

The bill also requires the employer, when requested, to confer with the minister and any trade unions that represent the employees to discuss alternative methods of reducing the number of terminations.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS

REVIEW OF BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS

Mr. S. Smith: Mr. Speaker: I am delighted that the luck of the draw, so to speak, has entitled me to present before this House a resolution dealing with --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will you move the resolution standing in your name, please?

Mr. S. Smith moved private member’s motion No. 7:

Resolution: That, in addition to the authority granted to the standing procedural affairs committee for this parliament by resolution of the assembly dated June 28, 1977, the committee have authority to review the operation of any board, agency or commission to which the government of Ontario appoints all or some of the members with a view to eliminating redundancy and overlapping. And that the committee may recommend upon completion of a review that a board, agency or commission be terminated where, (

a) the costs of operating the board, agency or commission no longer justify the service being provided to the public; (

b) the amalgamation of the board, agency or commission with one or more existing boards, agencies or commissions would increase administrative effectiveness; (

c) the work of the board, agency or commission could be better performed by another government organization; (

d) the board, agency or commission no longer serves the public interest. And that the committee shall establish a review

schedule whereby the operations of every board, agency or commission would be examined at least once in the next four years. But that the fact that a board, agency or commission is scheduled for review shall not prevent the committee from reviewing it at any time and the committee considers appropriate. And that the committee shall be empowered to send for persons, papers and things pursuant to

section 35 of the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. S. Smith: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for correcting the procedure. As I say, I am pleased to have the opportunity to present before this House a resolution which in my opinion will at least begin the long process of trimming the excessive amount of government procedure and regulation which we as Ontarians and, frankly, as Canadians -- or anybody in the western world, for that matter -- have been subjected to over the years.

My remarks this afternoon will be relatively brief. I believe the motion we are now debating is clear in purpose and self-explanatory in terms of implementation.

I recognize that the idea embodied in the motion is not a new one, but it is definitely one whose time has come. Let me assure hon. members that I am more than willing to consider additions to this resolution as long as we end up with an effective mechanism which not only can monitor all boards, agencies and commissions but can also recommend to the Legislature the abolition of those that are no longer serving a useful purpose.

[3:45]

I believe that members might find it helpful if I provided some background to the concept of a “sunset” law. Essentially, it comes from recent American experience. The purpose of a sunset law is to establish a mechanism whereby government agencies and/or programs come under periodic review.

The statute establishing a particular agency or program usually includes a clause which automatically terminates the agency after a set period of time unless through a specific review process the agency or program continues to be justified. In effect, this type of law forces the burden of proof for the continuation of an agency or program onto the supporters of that particular program.

Such legislation was first enacted in the state of Colorado in 1976 and has since been at least considered by every state in the United States and has been enacted in some 24 states.

In Colorado the legislation is being applied to all of the state’s regulatory bodies and agencies -- 43 in total. Ontario, on the other hand, has some 360 boards, agencies and commissions to which this provincial government appoints all or some of the members. Of that total, about 300 receive funds either directly or indirectly from the consolidated revenue fund. Nineteen of these bodies have audited financial statements appearing in volume 2 of the public accounts. Many others can be found in the spending estimates for a particular ministry, but generally with only a dollar amount attached to them.

Obtaining a breakdown of a grant for any agency is not an easy task. Still other bodies do not appear either in the spending estimates or the public accounts. Their expenses are usually part of an administrative cost of a branch of a ministry.

Let me cite as an example, the artificial insemination of livestock advisory committee. It was set up by the Artificial Insemination of Livestock Act, RSO 1970,

chapter 30,

section 3. The Act states that the members of the committee “shall receive such allowances and expenses as the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines.” Payments are based on certain guidelines set up by Management Board of Cabinet This committee generally meets about twice a year with remuneration of $95 per day for its chairman, and $75 per day for its members. But such payments are part of the administrative budget of the livestock branch of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food and therefore quite invisible.

I do not cite this advisory committee as one which should necessarily be terminated, but rather to illustrate how one particular government body was set up and where its budget is found. I do not have a predetermined list of those bodies which should be scrapped. My purpose in bringing forward this resolution is to underline the fact that we have no effective mechanism either to determine what the various boards, agencies or commissions are doing or to decide which ones, if any, should be eliminated.

In this context, however, it is interesting to note that the Provincial Auditor for the past three years has reported on three agencies which are inactive. These agencies are the Ontario Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Sheridan Park Corporation and the Ontario Telephone Development Corporation. They are still inactive and will, in all likelihood, be appearing once again in this year’s report. These are agencies which have simply not met and as they have not submitted financial statements the Auditor has had to name them in his report.

His responsibility ends there. What about those bodies that are still active? How are they to be properly reviewed?

In Ontario we have three specific budgetary or financial review procedures: The spending estimates debates; the Provincial Auditor’s annual report; and the work of the public accounts committee. Even with these formal and detailed mechanisms it has been increasingly clear to many of us that little or no time was being allotted to a meaningful review of the role and purpose of the various government boards, agencies, and commissions.

At the present time only the minister responsible or the Premier may recommend abolishing any board, agency or commission, and this is seldom done. One of the primary reasons is, I suspect, that cabinet ministers simply do not have the time constantly to oversee operations of all of the bodies in their respective ministries.

It seems to me that while the regular estimates debate procedure does provide the means for a detailed review of government programs, something else is needed for the boards, agencies and commissions. I have, therefore, tried to adapt our existing procedures in the Ontario Legislature to include a more thorough and specific review of those bodies.

Shortly before the last election, the Legislature established new terms of reference for a procedural affairs committee. The role of this committee is to “review and report to the House its observations and opinions on the operation of the standing and provisional orders of the House, and such additional matters as may be referred to it by the House or by Mr. Speaker from time to time.

And that the committee also have power to review the operation of particular boards, agencies and commissions for which annual reports have been tabled in the House and referred to it, and the committee may review the operation of these bodies as it selects, with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping.”

I am proposing that we go one step further and insist that the committee examine every board, agency and commission and recommend to this Legislature the termination of those boards, agencies and commissions which it believes, after careful review, no longer serve the public and have outlived their usefulness.

I believe that my motion today will make the committee’s function much more clear cut and specific. Its primary job will be to review the various boards, agencies and commissions and provide specific recommendations to the Legislature regarding their future existence.

In my view, one of the committee’s first tasks would be to establish the exact number of boards, agencies and commissions that it should review. One list which can be used as a guide is that prepared by the Premier’s office, entitled Boards, Agencies and Commissions, listing those to which the provincial government appoints all or some of the members. I present for the consideration of members a copy of that list. It is very extensive indeed.

Other lists also exist. In fact, I have a list prepared from the Premier’s list, I believe, by the hon. member for London South (Mr. Walker) who was kind enough to send me a categorization, for which I thank him. And there are a number of other lists in existence.

Surely, we must determine how many boards, agencies and commissions actually exist.

I have set out in my motion a time-frame of four years in which the committee should review all these bodies. I selected that period as it corresponds to a normal legislative period. If the committee believes that it would need more time, particularly for the first comprehensive review, I am sure that the Legislature would follow its recommendation to amend the terms of reference in this regard.

I may say, parenthetically, Mr. Speaker, that in Colorado it was found to be a rather lengthy and time-consuming process to do a proper review, and it is entirely possible that with the large burden that the committee may find itself faced with, as it begins this historic review, it may want to come back to the Legislature and ask for some change in the terms of reference. I am sure that that would be a simple enough matter which could easily be accommodated at that time.

I do believe, personally, that four years is a realistic period. I would also think that if the procedural affairs committee wanted to have another of the standing committees look at a particular agency it could also make a recommendation to that effect. In other words, the committee might find itself burdened with a great deal of work and may decide to take a dozen agencies that, perhaps, properly fall within the realm of one of the other standing committees of the House, and request that the House might specifically ask one of the other standing committees to examine the agencies in question.

In addition, the committee might decide to restrict its review only to regulatory bodies. And the definition of regulatory -- should it decide that -- would, of course, be something that the committee would have to decide in consultation with the best counsel available, and that, I think, is something which I am sure the committee could do.

There may be some who feel that my motion does not go far enough. Certainly it would be preferable if the government were to introduce legislation with termination dates set out for the various agencies and programs they establish unless they are re-mandated. I think, in fairness, the sunset concept has generally speaking been that. In the state of Colorado, for instance, if an agency is not able to prove a need for it to be re-mandated it is automatically terminated. In this way the onus of proof of the need for continued existence is placed on the agency.

Frankly, I would prefer that. The difficulty is that in private members’ debating time and under the business of private members, we are advised by legislative counsel it is not possible to include an automatic termination of this kind. It is possible to have an automatic review and a recommendation for termination, but it is not possible to have an automatic termination. That requires a government bill brought forward by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

The problem is that if we simply wait for the government to proceed in that manner, there is really no reason to believe that it would do so.

Although it would be preferable to have that type of sunset provision, the resolution I am presenting is at least within the terms of reference permitted. Some may think that the government cannot be trusted to bring in such legislation, and that it will merely use as an excuse the existence of this resolution that I am presenting regarding the procedural affairs committee. In other words, the government may say because of my resolution there is no need for another sunset resolution which actually puts automatic termination on agencies. This, if the House passes it, would have the procedural affairs committee undertaking the various examinations and recommendations that I have recommended.

Under those circumstances, there are some who feel the government would use that as an excuse to get out of this responsibility -- to actually go in to the sunset provisions of the kind that the state of Colorado has at the moment.

I don’t believe that the government cannot be trusted. I trust that the government will not use this as such an excuse. What I would urge all members to consider today is that we have here a means of taking a major step forward in the area of controlling government spending and government involvement in our lives. I would hope that we do not reject this opportunity to take positive action simply because this motion does not cover all government spending.

I think it would be a very healthy thing for the standing procedural affairs committee to look at each existing board, agency or commission, recognizing that there will be a

schedule of looking at them and that they would have the power to recommend mergers or abolition or changes as they deem suitable.

By taking this step today I believe we can create a ripple effect on all government programs. The committee, as you know, already has the power to look at these matters but they have not done so. And it has not been obligatory for them to do so.

The application of the sunset process in the state of Colorado has had an encouraging side effect. The behaviour of all state agencies has improved in that they have added more lay people to their boards, and the promulgation of their rules and jurisdictional responsibilities has been clarified in preparation for their own sunset review. In other words, they have cleaned up their act so to speak in anticipation of how they could be changed to better serve the public.

The sunset review process will open up the policy options available to the government. A large portion of our budget is predetermined. We all want new programs or agencies but we do not want to raise more tax dollars to finance them.

The only alternative therefore is to eliminate outmoded programs or agencies of the government and replace them with others more appropriate to today’s problems.

It is my opinion that this concept of controlling government spending will filter through to all spending programs. The application of this resolution to the province’s boards, agencies and commissions is based on the notion that we have to start somewhere. And I hope it will signal a new approach to limiting government spending on all accounts.

Therefore, I take pleasure in presenting for the consideration of this House the resolution standing in my name.

[4:00]

Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, it’s a pleasure to rise today. There’s so much debate going on with respect to the sunset law and it’s a pleasure to see that. I feel the Leader of the Opposition introduced a very well-meaning resolution which is heading in the right direction, because it cannot be emphasized too much, how important the review process is to good government.

The review process is vitally important, particularly as it relates to regulations and regulatory government within the province. Indeed, at all levels of government, the bureaucracy, the regulation, the red tape and the plain-and-simple heavy hand of government far too often felt, seems all-pervasive to every individual in the province. Well-meaning regulations have a habit of continuing ad infinitum, forever interfering with our way of life. There appears to be no proper government mechanism in any level of government in Canada to remove regulations which have reached the point of redundancy.

Let me divert for a moment and offer these classic examples to illustrate my point. I’m told in 1960, the Boer War Commission operated in Ottawa. At that particular moment in time, there were more members of the Boer War Commission than veterans of the Boar War.

Mr. Peterson: Jimmy Auld fought in that, didn’t he?

Mr. Walker: Another example -- and this time it’s of a regulation which might have been rescinded in England to save taxpayer money. Just after the first war, the Royal Horse Artillery completely converted to vehicular means of transporting their artillery.

All their horses were retired to pasture, or wherever they go and years later when the Royal Horse Artillery was on parade -- it was still called the Royal Horse Artillery -- some citizen had the audacity to ask the commanding officer, what that one soldier did, standing over there by himself with his hands clasped in front of him, appearing to have no purpose at all. The commanding officer retorted, “Madam, it’s that soldier’s function to hold the horses.” Someone had forgotten to rescind the regulation some 20 years later.

As I indicated, the Leader of the Opposition is indeed on the right track when he attempts to encourage review, and I commend him for that. Regrettably, I feel his resolution falls far short of what is necessary here today.

Mr. Reed: Here is the but.

Mr. Kerrio: But.

Mr. Walker: It lacks the essential ingredient of the sunset law -- the automatic death rate, the date on which the legislation or the agency automatically terminates. Indeed the very word “sunset” means the sun shall set. And for our own examples we might apply to the Ontario Highway Transport Board to suggest if it had an opportunity to set in the sun, perhaps it would be December 31 of 1978 or even sooner.

Mr. Wildman: He is talking about twilight.

Mr. Kerrio: Put Gray Coach out of business.

Mr. Walker: The resolution goes so far as to create review which is, of course, important in sunset legislation. But in fact it offers no sunset date whatsoever and is therefore not a sunset bill or a sunset resolution. But it has to be sunset in order to work.

Indeed, if the member had brought simply the endorsement of sunset before the House today I would have been the first to support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Reed: Why don’t you amend it? Let’s have an amendment.

Mr. Walker: Because as you know Mr. Speaker, I have on the order paper at this particular time, a resolution to that effect.

Mr. Kerrio: Put an amendment in it.

Mr. Walker: I might ask why half a loaf of bread might be better than no loaf at all. I have to say to you in this case, half a loaf is worse than no loaf at all.

Mr. Peterson: Walker, you are half-baked.

Mr. Walker: In this particular case it would become far too easy a hitching post for bureaucratic people to say now that we have review, we really do not have to have sunset; that is the self-destruct machinery.

Mr. Wildman: Use a hitching post.

Mr. Walker: That would destroy the real value of the review. As the resolution was originally framed it would require a review of 347 agencies, boards and commissions by the procedural affairs committee spanning a period of some four years. To review 347 in four years would be about as easy as boarding a 747 in full flight. Review would become a mockery buried beneath tons of paper and consumed by the inertia of government itself.

Mr. Peterson: That’s catchy.

Hon. J. A. Taylor: Good, eh?

Mr. Wildman: You have an inert government.

Mr. Walker: If we take a look at the state of Colorado to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, their experience in 1977 was the legislative committee could do a proper job to only about 13 of their boards and agencies. The benefit of the sunset law is that it already solves some of the inherent problems created by a simple review mechanism. Firstly, it terminates automatically unless the review committee and the Legislature should choose to do otherwise. Secondly, it turns the inertia of government bureaucracy against itself, such that if the bureaucracy cannot justify its continuance --

Mr. Reed: That would be worth while.

Mr. Walker: -- it would bring about new legislation by the government; the onus of proof being on the bureaucracy itself, then it automatically terminates.

Normally bureaucratic inertia works the other way around and because time is, for it, simply dragging its heels, it becomes forgotten and overlooked. With sunset the burden of proof shifts to the accused. The agency is presumed to be guilty unless proven innocent and reprieved. Under simple review, the bureaucracy game is to hide as much as possible, as the onus is on the government in that case to make a case for eliminating the agency or program. Under sunset, the onus is on the bureaucracy to prove its case.

The sunset law has a built-in self-destruct mechanism that the inertia of government cannot consume and it therefore has to be reckoned with or else it has a date with the executioner. This triggering mechanism is truly the essence of proper review. This approach is vitally important, because a review without a built-in self-destruct mechanism is not a great deal better --

Mr. Reed: Why don’t you have it?

Mr. Walker: -- than our present system, made so perfect today by the sheer weight of bureaucracy itself. Too often the Legislature concerns itself with the rhetoric of legislation, leaving the hard work of oversight and overview to be carried out in a hit or miss fashion, rather than with the steady diligence which should be our fundamental responsibility.

Sunset does not allow us to avoid or sidestep difficult decisions we may have preferred to avoid in the past. Each of us would have to bite the bullet even with our favourite programs, and, hopefully, if it’s extended into government programs and boards as well.

In Alabama, the state attempted a half-baked approach to a review mechanism. That was really not a proper sunset law, and today it is as if they had no law at all with respect to review. The reason is the lack of this fail-safe, self-destruct mechanism.

I’m optimistic that the sunset law is an idea whose time has come. But it has to be done right, and that is by Act of the Legislature. I am also optimistic that a true sunset law will come into this province in the next several months. The Leader of the Opposition and I discussed my reasons for my reluctance to support his interim measure, and that is not because I oppose the direction in which he is intending to head, but rather I oppose the machinery by which the review would be brought about. With his review mechanism in place, it would be all too easy for people to say, “Now that we have review, we do not need to have sunset.”

Mr. S. Smith: It’s your government, Gord.

Mr. Walker: That may be the case, but that may be the way. That would be no more useful than our present estimates approach today. And as every member here knows, estimates is nothing more than a shotgun approach to agencies and programs which, frankly, serve little or no use.

Mr. Wildman: What?

Mr. McClellan: What allegations.

Mr. Walker: A proper sunset law will restore to this House the kind of review so blatantly absent today.

Mr. MacDonald: I rise to express the support of the New Democratic Party for this resolution. I’ve only one reservation, and it’s a reservation which is expressed in an amendment standing on the order paper today. I would like to move that now so that I can speak to both of them.

Mr. MacDonald moved that Mr. S. Smith’s resolution be amended by the addition of the following words: “And that the committee shall have the authority to engage such counsel and other personnel as the committee deems appropriate.”

Mr. Rotenberg: Just to spend more money.

Mr. S. Smith: That’s a good idea.

Mr. MacDonald: The hon. member for Wilson Heights likes to engage in idle pursuits without the capacity to do anything effective. That’s the import of his interjection.

As was pointed out by the Leader of the Opposition in introducing his motion, the resolution which was introduced by the government House leader last June 28, in establishing the standing procedural affairs committee, clearly spells out that that committee has “the power to review the operation of particular boards, agencies and commissions for which annual reports have been tabled in the House and referred to it, and the committee may review the operation of these bodies as it selects with a view to reducing possible redundancy and overlapping.”

There is a list of those agencies, boards and commissions which produce annual reports and, therefore, will fall within the jurisdiction and the purview of the standing procedural affairs committee. I’ve heard it variously estimated as 103 or 107. There are approximately 100 of them. The reason why we support this resolution is that it extends the role of the standing procedural affairs committee to encompass all ABCs -- agencies, boards and commissions -- to which the Lieutenant Governor in Council makes appointment. That list is contained in a volume, the up-to-date version of which I have been able to get from the cabinet office. There are some 363 such bodies.

Some of them are redundant. Some of them should have been eliminated years ago. That comes to the point that the hon. member for London South was speaking about as to how one achieves a mechanism for eliminating one that is redundant. I remind the House that two years ago, in the interim report that was presented to this House from the standing committee on public accounts, it recommended that the Ontario Canteen Fund affairs be wound up and the committee further recommended “in view of the costs of dispensing assistance that the Soldiers’ Aid Commission be phased out and the administration of the program be assumed by the Ministry of Community and Social Services.”

Mr. S. Smith: That will go down in history.

Mr. MacDonald: What happened? The usual thing happened; nothing. A recommendation is brought in through a committee and is placed on the table. The report is accepted -- in most instances it is adopted. Yet the government just blandly ignores it. So those two redundant organizations or inefficient organizations, whose purpose has got lost with the passage of time, still exist when it’s been suggested they should go out of existence.

Let me move to some background considerations of this whole situation. Ontario has moved significantly in recent years to the establishment of what is referred to as a professional civil service, that is, one to which appointments are normally made of people who have the educational qualifications, the personal qualifications and the experience. They are not subject to firing because of the political whims of a government that has just come in and wants to get rid of all the appointees of the government that has just gone out.

The last time we had that kind of mass firing was in 1934 when the Liberals came in and cleaned out all of the Tories who had been appointed by the Ferguson and Henry administrations.

Mr. Peterson: We’re going to do it again.

Mr. Foulds: You are?

Mr. MacDonald: When George Drew came in in 1943 no such mass slaughter took place.

Mr. Peterson: That’s because they didn’t deserve it.

Mr. MacDonald: It didn’t partly, I suggest, because there was a shortage of manpower available to fill posts at that time.

Mr. Wildman: They were all over fighting the war.

Mr. MacDonald: Secondly, it may be that there was a growing recognition of the validity of a professional civil service rather than a partisan civil service. But I suspect the most critical reason of all was that it was a minority government and, being a minority government, one doesn’t throw one’s weight around in that sort of a fashion.

[4:15]

In other words, we have moved from the old partisan civil service to a professional civil service or at least in that direction. But the point I want to make and draw to the attention of the House is that the government has moved to the establishment of a new patronage system. There are in government agencies, boards, and commissions, I am told -- I haven’t had the time and I don’t know anybody who has tabulated it totally -- some 5,000 appointees by the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

May I put into the record a rather balanced comment by Professor Desmond Morton, an historian of some repute and recognition with regard to this kind of situation.

Mr. Wildman: Wonderful man.

Mr. B. Newman: Never heard of him

Mr. MacDonald: He says, for example, and I quote: “In time, Drew and his successors found a satisfying and generally acceptable way of rewarding the network of local notables on which Progressive Conservative power rests. The expansion of the Ontario government has largely taken the form of a proliferation of agen